1

Arthur schopenhauer comments on Spinoza's God accordingly:

For the word God, honestly used, means a cause such as this of the world, with the addition of personality. An impersonal God is, on the contrary, a contradictio in adjecto.

What does contradicto in adjecto mean in this context ?

Source: On the Fourfold Root of the Principle of Sufficient Reason

2
  • 1
    Wikipedia has an article on it, contradictio in adjecto, contradiction in terms. Schopenhauer is mistaken, btw, in his narrowly Biblical idea of God. Non-personal deities were widespread in the Orient long before Spinoza, and are still worshipped. Ironically, it is the same cultural area that Schopenhauer took his philosophical inspiration from. During the Enlightenment the impersonal "God of poets and philosophers" became popular in the West as well. There is no contradiction in terms.
    – Conifold
    Jul 6 '20 at 6:01
  • @Conifold Thanks for the comment. I'm very interested in schopenhauer's philosophy because it resonates with me. I'm also new to the topics mentioned. I'd be glad if u point out to sources that can help me understand what you mean.
    – Ahmad Ab
    Jul 7 '20 at 15:12
1

Let us consider a passage ending in the mentioned sentence:

It is therefore the relation in knowledge of the reason to its consequent; whereas true Theism (Spinoza's Theism is merely nominal) assumes the relation of the cause to its effect, in which the cause remains different and separate from the consequence, not only in the way in which we consider them, but really and essentially, therefore in themselves to all eternity. For the word God, honestly used, means a cause such as this of the world, with the addition of personality. An impersonal God is, on the contrary, a contradictio in adjecto.

In broad lines, Schopenhauer points out that an internally coherent theism keeps God and the World separate just like cause and effect. However, pantheism (viz., Spinoza's theism) unifies God and the World and renders God impersonal. In conversation mainly with Kantian thought, Schopenhauer holds that God must not only be separate from the World, but must be personal, that is, a "knowing and willing" individual as well. Hence, an "impersonal God" is an incoherent idea (notice that there is merely a fine distinction between contradictio in adjecto and being an oxymoron; the former one is a logical fallacy, whereas the latter one is more of a rhetorical character.). Thus, Spinoza's theism is only in the name, and indeed, a shy version of atheism.

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.